Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

We have been made aware of fraudulent text messages being sent to individuals claiming to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the court system. These messages often state that the recipient owes penalties or fees related to traffic violations or DMV infractions and may include a link or phone number to resolve the matter. 

Take these steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to a text message scam:

  • Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts — If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply.
  • Verify the source — If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels.
  • Call the DMV if you have concerns — The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133.

Please see DMV warning about fraudulent texts: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-warns-of-fraudulent-te…

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Estate of Bradley Joseph Eurick

Case Number

22PR00564

Case Type

Decedent's Estate

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 05/21/2024 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Final Distribution

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

After supplement, it is recommended the Court make the following order:

Equitable Distribution re: 2014 Audi.  Petitioner’s actions before appointment create problematic issues with the accounting as presented.  According to the supplement, sometime after the Decedent’s death, but before the Petitioner was appointed personal representative, Petitioner paid off the lien on the subject vehicle with her own funds ($19,864.63), then transferred title of the vehicle to herself.  At the time of transfer, the vehicle was in a non-operational status due to the vehicle being involved in a collision from which the vehicle had not been repaired. 

These facts require the following legal conclusions relating to how this entire series of transactions must be viewed by the Court, according to law. 

First, the vehicle was not properly accounted for in the Final Account and Report of the Personal Representative, because in that accounting, the vehicle was listed as estate property, when in reality, the vehicle no longer belonged to the estate.  The proper way to account for the vehicle would have been to list the date of death-value of the vehicle as a debt owed to the estate, since in transferring title to the vehicle, the Petitioner breached at least two fiduciary duties: 1) The duty to use ordinary care and diligence in the management and control of the estate (Prob. Code, §9600), and 2) the duty to avoid conflicts of interest (Estate of Bonaccorsi (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 462, 468).  This would not only have disqualified the Personal Representative from appointment, but is currently grounds for removal and surcharge.

Second, Petitioner’s request for reimbursement was an unfiled creditor’s claim (Prob. Code, §9000), and should be reviewed from the lens of a creditor’s claim, and analyzed with higher scrutiny because of the breaches of fiduciary duty.  According to the Probate Code, creditor claims must be filed either 4 months after letters first issue to the Personal Representative, or 60 days after the creditor receives proper notice. (Prob. Code, §9100.)  Petitioner’s claim was not filed until far after either event, because Petitioner both was issued letters over a year ago and had notice of administration from that time.  Accordingly, her claim, according to law, should be denied.

 

HOWEVER, due to the circumstances outlined in the supplement submitted on May 16, 2024, it is recommended the Court exercise its broad discretion to show a considerable measure of mercy to the Personal Representative for the actions related to the subject vehicle.  In doing so, the Court should keep in mind that the Petitioner saved the estate a $19,864 creditor’s claim by the lien holder, who also would have been within its right to re-posses the subject vehicle during administration.  It is therefore recommended the Court approve Petitioner’s proposed distribution, in part, but order the value of the vehicle credited back to the estate at $2,000 higher than proposed, as a surcharge against the Personal Representative for understandable, but actual self-dealing.

Therefore, the proposed order should be amended to reflect a deduction of $2,000 to the Personal Representative from the proposed “reimbursement” amount.

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 160 543 3416

Passcode: 5053334

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?